Marin Voice: Before Borders Existed, Human Migration Was a Natural Right

Liberal immigration policy has been the engine of America’s “greatness” and what makes us different from other countries, it also has been the main driver of our economic strength. These policies have philosophical implications.

Human migration in response to food availability, climate change, predators and internal conflicts is our shared legacy. Every human alive descends from ancestors who migrated. Since humans have moved freely for almost the entirety of our existence, then the human natural state is the state of free movement.

Regardless of the economic benefits (which so much research shows) or even economic instability (which is so hard to prove), there is the human rights issue. I am not talking about international law spearheaded by the U.S. supporting refugee status and admissions. I believe the ability to live generally anywhere one wants and can get to on our home planet qualifies as a natural human right.

A “natural” right is a fundamental right that is universal, and not dependent on the laws, customs or beliefs of any particular culture or government. Our founders considered natural rights to exist simply by virtue of being human. They are moral standards that specify how individuals should be treated, independent of legal or civil rights created by governments.

The philosopher most famously known for promoting “natural rights” was John Locke. He conceptualized natural rights as inalienable rights inherent to all individuals, including life, liberty and property, which exist independently of government or laws.

Locke’s formulation of natural rights greatly influenced the Enlightenment, the European restrictions on monarchy and the American Declaration of Independence. Locke argued that these rights exist in a “state of nature” and that governments are formed through a social contract to protect these rights; if a government fails to do so, it may be justly overthrown. I would add “justly ignored.”

Other philosophers such as Thomas Hobbes also discussed natural rights, but Locke’s theory, especially as presented in his “Two Treatises of Government” published in 1689, is the most well-known articulation of natural rights as fundamental, universal and inalienable rights.

Natural rights supersede social contracts. Social contracts allow governments to manage immigration but not to thwart it. Of course we desire wealthy, educated and brilliant immigrants. But even indigent immigrants have made huge contributions. It’s unlikely any human algorithm, deciding the type of person we want would do anything but limit access to potential geniuses.

Yet so many Americans are worried about migration. This is not new and dates back to tribal instincts in human behavior throughout history. U.S. liberal immigration has been an exception. Historically, with the exception of the Chinese, migration here was welcomed and easy. All one did was show up at a port, register and be medically approved if they arrived via first- or second-class tickets. If they were third, that likely meant they were poor. Those migrants were transferred to Ellis Island for more rigorous medical inspection and background checks. Only 2% were ultimately denied entry. It’s what made America great.

While it is a violation of natural rights to overly restrict access to your borders, it is reasonable under the social contract premise to encourage migration to specific areas within a country’s borders. There are many use cases for encouraging immigration and repopulating rural and small towns is a good example. Fewer births and an aging population are problems liberal immigration can solve. Just induce migrants – financially or with tax incentives – to move to the areas where we need them. I would foresee a big increase in family farming and better quality and variety of crops and much more robust small towns as a direct result. This is just one example of many of the benefits we are prohibiting by hard-lining immigration.

What we call an “immigration debate” is really just a test. Do we still believe what we once declared to the world — that rights exist in people, not passports? Locke gave philosophical language to that conviction; Thomas Jefferson wrote it into our Declaration of Independence. If we accept that liberty is natural and government is constructed to protect liberty, then we cannot let fear of migrants diminish us. If we allow that to happen we deny both our history and our principles and may lose 250 years of hard fought values.

Support of migration is America’s brand, our secret sauce and our advantage over other countries. America’s greatness was never a wall but a welcome.

Jim Palozola lives in Mill Valley.